When two lawyers clash at the WIPO over a domain, the matter seems rather serious.
LanardLaw.com is a domain registered in 2002; several years later, Nancy L. Lanard, of Lanard and Associates, P.C. and Josh Lignana, Spadea Lignana LLC formed a joint firm, under the name of The law firm of Spadea, Lanard & Lignana (SLL.)
The domain LanardLaw.com thus became an asset of the joint company.
According to the UDRP:
“After a number of years working together, Complainant gave notice of her intention to withdraw from SLL on March 19, 2016. Her access to SLL data was cut off on March 22, 2016. On March 21, 2016, Complainant registered the domain name, <lanardandassociates.com>, and subsequently launched a new website on April 11, 2016 using this domain name. On March 29, 2016, Complainant filed Articles of Amendment with the Pennsylvania Department of State to change the name of her pre-existing legal entity (Law Offices of Nancy L. Lanard, P.C.) to Lanard and Associates, P.C. On August 4, 2016, Complainant withdrew the name Lanard Law from Law Offices of Nancy L. Lanard, P.C. and added it to Lanard and Associates, P.C.”
The Complainant stated the following:
“Complainant states that she previously authorized the direction of traffic from the Domain Name to the SLL website, but only during the time that she was a member of SLL. Any previous authorization ceased at the time that Complainant withdrew as member. Complainant contends that she has retained all right, title and interest in her personal name, the LANARD mark and the Domain Name, which are both comprised primarily of her personal name.
Complainant states that when her personal name, the LANARD mark or the Domain Name is entered into the Google search engine, one of the top results is the Spadea Law website. This misleads the public into thinking that Complainant is affiliated in some way with Spadea Law, and gives Spadea Law an improper competitive advantage as a result of Complainant’s name recognition and reputation.”
This is a case where a last name becomes a brand, and the domain is in the hands of a former business partner.
The UDRP process typically sees such disputes as more fit of being resolved via the judicial process. In the case of LanardLaw.com, the sole panelist, Christopher S. Gibson stated thus:
“Here, the Panel’s decision that this case does not fall within the Policy should not be read as a vindication of a party’s conduct as to the matters in dispute between them. Instead, the issue of whether rights in (or corresponding to) the Domain Name were transferred from Complainant to the SLL law firm (and the related question of whether there was “consent” for updating the Domain Name’s registration into Respondent’s name) would appear to depend on an interpretation, under Pennsylvania law, of the contract that was executed between the parties – the 2011 operating agreement, along with any circumstances that might be considered relevant. Further, Complainant’s claims of ethics violations by Respondent and Mr. Spadea, when Complainant resigned from the SLL firm, are clearly outside the scope of the Policy.”
The UDRP was thus denied, and the two former partners will most likely take the matter to a regular court.
For the full text of the UDRP, click here.
Domain law.
Why not just get: lanard.law which is available
Kevin – Because the .com is an asset that already has SEO juice.
Off topic… I acquired NameAttorneys.com this week.